> Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.
And then it goes on. Imagine writing something similar regarding human women? I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist? I would have flagged this if there weren't already substantial discussion here that I don't want to bury.
I'd say that is only sexism if you consider it biologically wrong. If you believe that it's a correct description of an effect caused by genetics, then it would be descriptive instead.
But what your comment nicely illustrates is that whether someone considers something sexist depends on whether or not they believe it to be true. As a result, people who are unwilling to accept certain objective truths might consider descriptive science to be sexist.
If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.
that's a bit of a stretch. more like "here's an example of something that animals do that most would consider dumb, it turns out that humans actually do something similar"
Nah people do this all the time when making comments designed to put people down. Yes they didn't explicitly say they think men are like dogs... they just gently popped those two things together next to each other and left them there for people to quietly pick up what they mean, but keeping themselves clean if anyone points it out.
It's called (ironically in this case) a dog whistle. Keep an eye out for them!
Nitpicking brigade here, sorry:
In my understanding a dog whistle is something else, it's a code phrase used to refer to some opinion that's unsavoury and know transgressive to communicate out-of-band to your supporters that you share that opinion. An actual dog whistle for calling dogs produces ultrasound, that humans cannot hear...
Are you arguing against the example or the idea? More generally we call these illusions. There are any number of examples we could swap out and the point wouldn't change.
> If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.
I have a disagreement on one word choice here: “skills”. I don’t think that’s the best word to use in this context since it could be understood for one of its dictionary meanings, which is expertise.
> I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist?
It is! It just happens to be sexist towards acceptable targets. Since men are perceived as dominant and powerful, the sexism is regarded as a non-issue.
Rather than assuming it implies "men are dumb, like dogs" or "men are like dogs, and dumb", you could instead read it as "men can get aroused so easily. Human arousal is dumb".
I take no offense at the idea that the monkey-brain arousal mechanisms of men and women is "dumb", in the sense of simplistic. Logically, we know a picture is not a valid mating target, but still we can get aroused.
Yes, if you read it as calling men dumb, it's a little sexist. But if you read it as a commentary on human arousal, well, that's not a thinking feeling target, so you can be no more sexist against it than against a rock.
If you didn't want it to be sexist, you would say people instead of men. That's the sexist part. I know plenty of women who are aroused by visual porn.
At the very end it seems to me she is trying to side with men in some capacity, but without agitating women.
>But market innovation has already created something dreadful on the other side of the coin: a large segment of men that have no prospect of satisfying their most basic desires.
Though this comes at the end, and without much else said about it.
> Zoologists have found that the males of many species will court an enormous range of objects having a vague resemblance to the female: other males, females of the wrong species, females of the right species that have been stuffed and nailed to a board, parts of stuffed females such as a head suspended in midair, even parts of stuffed females with important features missing like the eyes and the mouth. --Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works
It's also a bad analogy: a dog reacting aggressively to their own image vs a human getting aroused by images of someone else. It's apples and oranges folks! I came up with two much better analogies
1. Ever think a dog is dumb for humping a stuffed animal? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. <- Comparing dog vs. human arousal to external stimulus
2. Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror. <- Comparing dog vs (unusual) human reaction to seeing their own reflection.
> Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror.
Is that statement actually true for a significant plurality of human men? I've never heard anyone say this before, and it has 0% resonance with me personally.
And then it goes on. Imagine writing something similar regarding human women? I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist? I would have flagged this if there weren't already substantial discussion here that I don't want to bury.